8/22/2019 Consti legislative cases.docx

1/1

Dimaporo vs. Mitra

FACTS: Petitioner Dimaporo was elected as Representative for the Second District of Lanao del Sur

during the 1987 elections. On 1990 the petitioner filed with the COMELEC a certificate of candidacy for

the position of Provincial Governor of ARMM. Upon being informed of this fact, the Secretary and

Speaker of the House of Representatives excluded the petitioners name from the roll of members of the

House of Representatives under Article 9, Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code. Dimaporo lost the

1990 elections and wrote a letter intending to resume his duties and functions as an elected member of the

House of Representatives. However he was not allowed to regain his seat in the Congress. Because of this

the petitioner filed a petition against his removal from his seat.

ISSUE: whether or not Dimaporo can be removed from the roll of the members of the House of

Representatives because he filed a certificate of candidacy for another position.

RULING: Yes. The mere act of filing certificate of candidacy for another position automatically

produces permanent forfeiture of the elective position being presently held, it is not necessary that the

other position be actually held, this is in pursuance with Section 67, Article 9 of B.P. Blg. 881.

Philippine Constitution Association vs. MathayFACTS: Petitioner filed a suit against the former Acting Auditor General of the Philippines and the

Auditor of the Congress of the Philippines seeking to permanently enjoin them from authorizing or

passing in audit the payment of the increased salaries authorized by RA 4134 to the Speaker and members

of the House of Representatives before December 30, 1969. The 1965-1966 budget, implemented the

increase in salary of the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives set by RA 4134, approved

just the preceding year 1964. Petitioner contends that such implementation is a violation of Article VI,

Sec. 14(now Sec. 10) of the Constitution. The reason given being that the term of the 8 senators elected in

1963, and who took part in the approval of RA 4134, would have expired only on December 30, 1969;

while the term of the members of the House who participated in the approval of said Act expired on

December 30, 1965.

ISSUE: Does Sec. 14(now Sec. 10) of the Constitution require that not only the term of all the members

of the House but also that of all the Senators who approved the increase must have fully expired before

the increase becomes effective?

RULING: In establishing what might be termed a waiting period before the increased compensation for

legislators becomes fully effective, the Constitutional provision refers to all members of the Senate and

the House of Representatives in the same sentence, as a single unit, without distinction or separation

between them. This unitary treatment is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the

expiration of the full term of the Senators and Representatives that approved the measure, using the

singular form and not the plural, thereby rendering more evident the intent to consider both houses for the

purpose as indivisible components of one single Legislature. The use of the word term in the singular,

when combined with the following phrase all the members of the Senate and the House, underscoresthat in the application of Art. VI, Sec. 14(now Sec. 10), the fundamental consideration is that the terms of

office of all members of the Legislature that enacted the measure must have expired before the increase in

compensation can become operative. The Court agreed with petitioner that the increased compensation

provided by RA 4134 is not operative until December 30, 1969, when the full term of all members of the

Senate and House that approved it will have expired.